Inequality based on genetic information already exists in our society. Can a customized human be the solution? Together we explore the ethical issues and possibilities.
Gattaca is a movie about customized humans. The protagonist, who is not a customized human, becomes the astronaut he has always dreamed of in a future society where the birth of customized humans has become commonplace and people are treated unequally based on their genetic information.
This movie makes us think deeply about the impact of the development of science and technology on human life and society. The concept of a customized human is not only a scientific fantasy, but also suggests the possibility of genetic engineering becoming a reality. Currently, gene-editing technology is advancing rapidly, which can not only treat diseases, but also change human abilities and characteristics. Against this backdrop, Gattaca offers a glimpse into our future.
Because the main character is a natural person (not a customized human), the film takes a rather negative stance on customized humans and the society in which they are generalized. The movie focuses on human “will” and “passion”, which cannot be quantified. And the “customized human” is portrayed as a threat to the natural human. I too was moved by the will and passion of the main character Vincent while watching the movie. But I don’t want to see the “customized human” as negative as in the movie.
Why do people have negative thoughts about customized humans? I think it is mainly because of the underlying “inequality”. Some people succeed easily through genetic manipulation, while others are born naturally and have a hard time living. Of course, this is understandable, but it is clear that this is a double standard, even in today’s reality where there are no customized humans. For example, if you have outstanding looks, you can become a celebrity that many people admire. Also, if you are tall, it is advantageous to become a basketball or volleyball player. Inequality based on genetic information is not limited to future opportunities. Even in today’s society, there is inequality of opportunity based on genetic information at birth, regardless of environment or individual effort. The difference, however, is that the judgment is made based on the traits expressed by the gene, rather than by analyzing the gene itself. The reason for this inequality has nothing to do with whether or not “customized humans” are possible. However, certain human characteristics, such as appearance, height, and eyesight, are almost entirely dependent on the genetic information inherited at birth. This is unavoidable for humans who are born with our own genetic information. People who are born with certain characteristics are socially recognized because there is a demand for such characteristics.
The ethical issues of genetic manipulation are also an important topic. Discussions are ongoing as to whether customized humans are morally justifiable. The long-term effects and potential risks of genetic engineering on humanity are not yet fully understood. The possibility of misuse of such technology and the concern that it could further widen social and economic disparities are very real.
Thus, it can be seen that social inequality based on genetic information is not caused by customized humans. Rather, it would be more accurate to say that the demand for customized humans has arisen because of the existence of social inequality based on genetic information. If this inequality is already a widespread problem in our society, wouldn’t the introduction of customized humans help to reduce this inequality? For example, the government would pay for the cost of customized humans. When such a world comes, we will no longer experience inequalities based on genetic information. It will be a world where everyone can get the results they deserve based on their own merits. Isn’t that the ideal world we have been longing for?
However, the reason why we think negatively about customized humans despite the situation is that we are wearing colored glasses. The various conventional beliefs that we have had will be broken by customized humans. It is certainly not easy to change our way of thinking all at once. But I ask again: Is it right to leave the inequality that clearly exists because it is “natural” as it is? Or is it right to solve it through customized humans? When the technology for customized humans becomes available in the distant future, we should not miss the opportunity to take our lives and the level of society we live in to the next level.
This discussion is not just about the scientific possibilities of the future. It requires deep reflection on the nature of human existence and the kind of society we want to create. We need to prepare for the future by considering the positive changes that customized humans can bring, as well as the moral and ethical challenges that will arise. I hope that customized humans will not only be the product of scientific development, but also a tool for a better society.
